An interesting article on the "netroots"

"Nevertheless, evidence of this position can be found in the Pew data, where 40 percent of the netroots said that Dean’s willingness to take unpopular positions was the most important reason (other than his issue positions themselves) to vote for him. The less fanciful but still dubious position that the public is on board with the netroots’ agenda is also well-represented in the data. Forty percent said that John Kerry lost the 2004 election in part because his positions were too conservative. Fully two-thirds of the netroots took one of these two positions. From these perspectives, it logically follows that an ideological critique of the party that takes the form of opposition to down-the-line liberalism is tantamount to undermining the party, reinforcing Republican talking points, advocating a Republican-lite agenda."

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11798


Comments?

Very interesting findings though. That some of them supported Dean regardless of positions but many also feel that Kerry lost for being too conservative. So very confusing.

one of them you have to fill in a form to get, which I didn't do... being lazy.

I'm going to be out of here for the evening in about 10 minutes - hope people find this article interesting...

it's worth a read, IMO

the whole subject of the netroots is something I've been intrigued by lately, and I'm always interested in what the Kerry
forum thinks.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=240
That the Dean supporters are almost universally white, a higher than average percentage 45-64, nearly 30% make 100,000K plus a year, a higher than average report no religion, etc. Do you remember how they would tell us that they knew Dean was moderate? Well the poll suggests that most of these folks are what one would call liberal yet the overwhelming thing most people liked about Dean was his stance on the issues but Dean's a moderate Democrat. I dunno but I found it very interesting that a good number of them were of older age because I remember hearing that Dean was bringing in young voters and he probably did bring in some but I have to tell you, most of my friends on and off the boards at the time weren't Dean fans, I mean we would have supported him if he won the nomination of course but there was always someone they liked better like Clark, Kucinich, Kerry, and Edwards. I am going to go out on a limb here and say the net favorite in 2008 will not be the nominee.

That is not very many. There were several hundred thousand at the time who supported Dean online, in rough figures. So 11.000 is not very much.

Yes, most of us really did know he was moderate/centrist. It was never a secret.

And the funny part is that we overwhelmingly supported Kerry from then on. Yes, many of us are older.

Can't believe the media spin.

The netroots are representative of Democratic movers and shakers on the ground level. Gov. Dena successfully got his positions out in late 2002 and particularly in early 2003 about the war and the fact that he thought it was wrong and that there should be a strong Democratic response to the march to war.

At that time, there were not enough people on the liberal blogs to say that this was all driven by the liberal web. Undoubtedly thought, some of it was. But a lot of the people on the blogs brought that passion back to their local communities and organized for Dean from the ground up. The netroots of 02-03 were responsible for moving others into the Dean camp. (This is not quite the 'canary in the coal-mine' argument, but it's akin to that. The Dean people were early adaptors. They spread their message through many different means, including an innovative use of the web. Kerry benefited from that as the nominee and raised the unheard of sum of $100 million just from the web.)

I am very leery of articles like this. I think that the liberal web is, ahm, liberal. That alone doesn't mean that it's influence is solely among liberals or that it is necessarily pushing the Democratic Party left on everything. The web backed Paul Hackett who was more centrist than liberal. The web is backing Jim Webb in VA, who is more moderate than liberal. The easily misunderstood thing is that the push is for liberals. It is for strong and opinionated candidates who press their issues strongly and don't back down when the media comes after them. That is a different critter all together.

that is way apart from most of us. Both MyDD and Kos, and several others called Scott Winship out on his spin in this article.

I am a little leery of that site, as it appears to be part of the NewDem/Democracy Alliance group. They are I am sure a fine group, but they really don't like those of us who make waves all that much.

If you look at the Democratic Strategist sink which links above, they are made of the New Dems.

They are using the liberal thing against us, as a weapon. Nothing wrong with liberal, it is what they have done to it. Now the DLC is takng Moderate as their definition, and that just about leaves us with nothing.

If that group is Moderate/Progressive/Centrist...what does that leave us? Liberal...and they are using the word against us.

They are the ones who called Dean a liberal fringe person on 03, when he had actually been a centrist DLC type. They play word games.

I did not like Scott's article, and a lot of the bloggers called him on it.

They do it in all coverage of politics and it;s very annoying. The real issues, as you stated, are more complex, but the media can't resist setting one against another and using superficials as the reasons. Sigh! I wish the media was more accountable to the truth. But this is the cheapest way to cover a race, focus on bogus superficials.

I think the winner is going to come out of the bottom four on any given "netroots" poll.

The poll was analysing Dean's supporters and their behaviour. This is not 40 % of dems, but 40 % of Dean netroots' supporters.

In addition, this poll is now more than one year old.

was the part pertaining to Kerry , where 40% didn't support him because he was too conservative.

During the primaries here at DU, it was my experience that many people here, at least 40%, viewed Kerry as too conservative, and that wasn't just coming from the Dean people. So I'm not going to reject these polls out of hand.

I think that the influence of the "netroots" is being overstated, by not only the MSM (see Lieberman/Lamont), but the netroots itself. What the internet has done is give the extremes on both sides of the aisle a bigger soapbox.

I don't think it's a good thing when idiots like Kos are held up as the standard bearer for the "netroots", and I'm really beginning to question whether the "netroots" are going to be a plus for the Democratic Party.

conservative. I tend to agree.

Compromise is a wonderful thing, but only if you are convincing when you present them. He probably would have done better if he had been more assertive in some of his proposals, rather than defending himself of being too liberal, but it is unfortunately clear that he was in the hands of DC strategists that were afraid he would look too democrat.

I really hope he remembers that if he runs in 08.

Sen. Kerry has 'crossed the Rubicon' on that one, at least for my money. There is no going back on calling the Iraq War a moral failure and insisting that the US needs to get out as soon as possible. I think he is, ahm, defineably and irreversibly 'left' on that and on many other things as well. (Ahm, Alito filibuster anyone? How soon Dems forget, sigh!)

the MSM is in a stage of tactical ignorance, so that he cannot present his proposals clearly.

Sadly, not allowing him to present his positions allow people to paint him both as a dangerous leftist (RW) and a conservative (other candidates supporters) or a waffler (both sides, apparently).

The media does what the media does. The good and true Senator from Massachusetts should keep on pushing his agenda and keep on telling the truth. There is no alternative to that and there is no way to force the media to alter their narrative. Kerry is not responsible for the agenda of the press. He must continue to pursue his own point of view and get on as many media outlets as possible to present it without media filters that distort what he is saying.

Kerry LOST Colorado, where I am, because he was seen as too liberal.

I think many involved in the "netroots" have a distorted view of the American electorate, no doubt helped along by the echo chamber effect of the medium. It's a weakness that cost Howard Dean, and I'm afraid it will cost Kerry if he runs again.

I think that's why the good Senator talks so much about the military officers and the Generals who are opposed to this war. It's badly run and it goes against what the military itself knows is and isn't working.

It isn't so much left vs right as what is working and what will never work. There is a sense of practicality in that.

The point is, the netroots is not DU or Daily Kos, and the two have their dissimilarities. I visit a lot of blogs and cannot understand the left wingnut association with the netroots. There are many moderate blogs, right-leaning and right wing blogs, blogs on the left infiltrated with wingnuts left and right (Huffington comes to mind), and so on. These are not obscure blogs either, they are highly visible and some are operated by people with tremendous knowledge of political issues (domestic, foreign and military). The netroots has grown, and those who continue to mis-characterize it have different objects: the media's is to marginalize the left and the centrists, who fear the rise of progressives in the Democratic party, want to pull the party back to the center (away from progressive Democrats, which is not synonymous with lefties).

Elected officials can ignore the netroots to their peril. I think Senator Kerry is engaging it, and rightfully so. To me this is about the online community (whatever its size, it is very active) and the offline community that relies on the media for information. I posted a piece about the media's non-coverage of Conyers' report on Bush's violation of the law. Only one brief mention was found (Jack Cafferty on CNN) in a news search. This report's circulation depends on the netroots, as does many actions of committed Democratic Senators and Congresspersons. Frankly, I cannot see how the Democratic Party can survive (not morph into a weakened version of the Republican party) if the media continues it's biased coverage and it succeeds in marginalizing the netroots.

I find it hard to fathom that anyone watching the news and active online can believe that the netroots didn't directly impact coverage of the Bush administration. All one has to do is consider the blog posts by key Democrats on critical issues that never made it to the mainstream media and received little and biased coverage in the press.

far left comes from Kos' association with both the Dean and Lamont campaigns. Of course that leaves out that Kos himself isn't really that much to the left, but his website certainly is, and since it gets the most hits the MSM is going to pick up on that.

Also, as you say, the MSM has it's own motives here.

The netroots has played a role - though not necessarily the one the MSM thinks, or the one the netroots itself thinks. It's helped get a lot of info out there - but, just posting on blogs doesn't get the job done. It's up to us - talking to our neighbors, talking to our customers - to get that info into people's heads.

----------------------------------

However, I do think there's a real danger in taking what's burning up the wires online and confusing that with politics in the real world. That's where I see the "netroots" failing.

isn't the end all, but to the extent that the blogs drive awareness of people visiting (participants) the blogs, it'll drive their offline discussions.

Also, I am becoming more uncomfortable with defining Kos as the netroots, and the media is doing that too on purpose. They are aware of other blogs and can certainly ascertain that there is a network underlying the posts at Kos. When I go to Taylor Marsh's site and Hotline and Think Progress, the links take me to sites I know and new ones, and I'm sometimes amazed at the number of comments at a newly discovered site. Like I said the online discussion involves everyone from academics to retired generals, housewives to students.

The interesting thing is that party sites, state and local, are now online and the discussion local candidates are having with their constituents are being brought into the debate. Didn't I just read an e-mail about a local candidate? This trend is going to continue, and I don't see it as dangerous. The Repubs rose to power using an insidious network that wasn't based online. On the Internet, there has to be a careful determination as to which voices are valid and which are insincere, but the valid voices cannot be discounted.

Having said that, I'll agree that DU isn't representative of the political realities, but then I consider DU a place that attracts a lot of far left voices. Kos does to an extent, but IMO, Kos attracts a lot of confusing voices, probably because they're trying to rationalize starting from Kos' POV. That alone is confusing.

The burning up the wires point I can agree with because some of these discussions are emotional, others are irrational.

I think people's perception of the netroots is going to be shaped by their own reality, the debate they hear in their own communities or families. From my perspective, some of the issues being discuss are extremely valid.



Edited to add: There are also a lot of disruptive (disingenous) voices here too!